Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.—Voltaire

Congress has amended this famous statement to read, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it from a distance," in a bill designed to keep a Kentucky "church" group from protesting at military funerals. The group, led by hatemonger Fred Phelps, claims military deaths are divine retribution for America's tolerance of homosexuality. Showing up at military funerals, the group displays signs reading, "Thank God for 9-11" and other such despicable things. Congress's action is regrettable but necessary.

Normally, I chafe at First Amendment restrictions, but not in this case. In the marketplace of ideas, everyone gets to express what he or she thinks. Speech that violates another person's sensibilities is subject to the censure of his or her peers, but not censorship. The Fred Phelps group demonstrates the limit of this idea. The deplorable words of the Phelps group will ultimately elicit physical censure. Their speech goes so far beyond what is acceptable that it ought to be barred at military funerals, and perhaps the funerals of ordinary gay people too. It's just not decent.

Already, counter protests have sprung up. The Patriot Guard Riders show up in droves whenever a Phelps protest is suspected. Hundreds of motorcycle riders form a screen, protecting families from the protesters (see related article in The Hutchinson News). According to a Fox report, some counter protesters have already attacked the Phelps group, underscoring the need for congressional action.

The "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" will bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral, notes a Washington Post article. Violators would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn, cited in the Washington Post article.

Regarding a Kentucky law, which the American Civil Liberties Union says goes too far in restricting speech, Fred Phelps has much to say, but none of it intelligent. I checked out his website, which I will not name here, and listened to one of his sermons. It's so full of common vulgarity that I'm reluctant to call it a sermon. Absent any rational application of scripture, Phelps rages about how the government is restricting his free speech. At points yelling, Phelps seems more a figure from a Stephen King novel than a preacher. What remains of his rhetoric fails to convince. He wants the right to hate (here I think he would even agree with my characterization of his efforts) and will push his views to whatever extreme he finds possible.

Placing limits on speech is dangerous, no doubt, but there are some "freedoms" I'm willing to give up.

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for Mark Adams

Article Author: Mark Adams

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

Visit Mark Adams's author pageMark Adams's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 1 - Dave Nalle

    May 26, 2006 at 4:08 am

    No rights are really being given up here. The right to free speech does not include the right to have people forced to be an audience for you and to receive your speech.

    This isn't strictly speaking a hate speech bill as the title implies. It's more of a privacy rights approach to this issue. If it restricted speech based on content then it would be absolutely unacceptable, but doing it on the basis of access is reasonable and probably constitutionally acceptable.

    Dave

  • 2 - Arch Conservative

    May 26, 2006 at 6:53 am

    That's a good point to.

    Also as many cemetarys are private property designated for private events, Phelps nor anyone else has the right to express his free speech there during funerals.


    But hypocrisy when it comes ot free specch and the left is nothing new.

    Take the ACLU for example........

    The head of the ACLU, ANthony Ramero recently said


    ""Take hate speech." "While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.""


    So hate speech is ok as long as it's not directed at minorities?

    It's wrong to express speech that would be considered hate speech toward minorities but it's ok to express speech that advocates adules having sex with children? (the aclu has defended the free speech rights of nambla in court numerous times)

    Gee I guess the ACLU doesn't really believe in the same rights for all huh?

    Big friggin surprise there!

  • 3 - JP

    May 26, 2006 at 7:40 am

    I'm ok with this decision. Expressing opinions is fine, but a funeral is a sacred ritual.

  • 4 - Lowell

    May 26, 2006 at 8:10 am

    I agree that the right to free speech should be protected, but these people are going beyond free speech to fighting words. I've ridden with the Patriot Guard since last October on eight mission runs. I've run into the Neanderthals from the WBC four of those times. They are disgusting.

    Just a note, the Patriot Guard was formed in Kansas, Phelps' home state, not Kentucky.

  • 5 - Nancy

    May 26, 2006 at 9:19 am

    Common sense dictates that there's a point at which Free Speech degenerates into something which should not be and is not "protected", but common sense is not necessarily inherent in the law. What are the parameters for something like this, BTW? Someone should be able to field racist bumper stickers on their car, as unsavory as it may be to the general public, yet not be allowed to harrass someone minding their own business who happens to be of the detested race of their selection (so to speak). At what point does free speech become illegal harrassment, and what is the legal reasoning for that particular point? Thanks.

  • 6 - Mark Adams

    May 26, 2006 at 10:52 am

    Nancy:

    You make an excellent point. The right of free speech does not include harrassment, which is what perhaps distinguishes demonstrations at funerals. I have the right to make my views known, whatever they be, but I do not have the right to be disruptive beyond what common decency allows (granted, "common decency" is a vague term, but I think this story provides a good example of what it might mean).

  • 7 - Nancy

    May 26, 2006 at 11:35 am

    You know, it would be interesting if the gay community were to descend on this clown & his followers & tag THEM for a week or so. You know: attend their church services, cosy up to them, follow them around, shop with them, dine in the same restaurants at the next table, put Gay Power stickers all over their cars, infect them with gay 'cooties', etc. and just generally make THEIR lives hell on earth for real. Now that's a good project, seems to me. How 'bout it, Gay Guys 'n Gals? Make Phelps' town & neighborhood the Gay Capital of the US of A?

  • 8 - Bliffle

    May 26, 2006 at 11:55 am

    How funny that we would abrogate free speech not for some high purpose but merely to protect a show, a ceremony, from a counter-show. Lest we hurt someones feelings, I suppose.

  • 9 - Arch Conservative

    May 26, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    Common sense dictates that there's a point at which Free Speech degenerates into something which should not be and is not "protected",


    If this is true as Nancy says,

    I would like to ask my fellow BC psoters what they think of the free speech expressed by NAMBLA and what they think of the ACLu who has often rushed to defend NAMBLA's right to free speech

  • 10 - Dave Nalle

    May 26, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    But Bliffle, this isn't a restriction of free speech. That's the point. It's just a protection of the privacy rights of the targets of this speech. Which amendment is more important, the 1st or the 4th?

    IMO this bill finds the appropriate balance between the two.

    Dave

  • 11 - Michael J. West

    May 26, 2006 at 12:59 pm

    But Bliffle, this isn't a restriction of free speech. That's the point.

    Precisely. As has been said over and over and over again, a person's rights only extend as far as they do NOT infringe on another person's rights.

  • 12 - Arch Conservative

    May 26, 2006 at 1:46 pm

    So noone has an opinion on the ACLU, supposed defender of civil liberties defending a group that advocate's men having sex with young boys (a criminal behavior)?

  • 13 - Dave Nalle

    May 26, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    No, AC. It's that no one thinks it's even vaguely relevant to this topic.

    But I'll throw you a bone. The ACLU is dead right in defending NAMBLA, because they're not defending their right to molest children, they're defending their right to discuss it - which is free speech no matter how unpleasant.

    Dave

  • 14 - zingzing

    May 26, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    everyone has an opinion.

  • 15 - Isaiah

    May 26, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    If you don't want to read the message, you can follow the Supreme Court's advice and "avert your eyes." No one is forcing anybody to read the signs.
    And of course Mark Adams says he is willing to give up this right: He is a hell-bound God-hating earth-dweller who despises the word of God. All of you want to stop our preaching because you don't want us to remind you that the soldier is in Hell because his parents, friends, and family brought him up to believe that God was a liar when He said to obey His commandments. You all hate God.

  • 16 - Isaiah

    May 26, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    BTW, when we picket at soldier's funerals, we don't actually go on the private property of the funeral home, we stand on public sidewalks.

  • 17 - DrPat

    May 26, 2006 at 5:54 pm

    Isaiah, how shall we avert our ears?

  • 18 - Mark Adams

    May 26, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Isaiah:

    What religion do you follow? I preach Jesus crucified and risen from the dead. I believe scripture when it says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).

    Do you deny Romans 5:8?

  • 19 - Isaiah

    May 26, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    How do you deny John 3:16-18
    "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
    17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
    18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

    If you don't believe, you are already condemned, so how about you get off of that maudlin "God loves everyone lie." God hates unbelieving and unrepentant sinners:
    Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

    Psalms 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

    Jesus died for those elect few He preordained to go to Heaven, so stop lying.
    Not only that, but Jesus himself said that the majority of mankind is headed straight for Hell:

    Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
    14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


    Many are found on the path to Hell, and few are found on the path to Heaven. Mainstream Christians believe exactly what you believe: that God loves everyone. Therefore, most "Christians" are liars headed for Hell.

  • 20 - Isaiah

    May 26, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    BTW, Romans 5:8 does not say Jesus died for ALL sinners. See the rest of my previous verses.

  • 21 - Gregory Newman

    May 26, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    Its not a Kentucky church. Its the Westboro Baptist Church and there in Oklahoma. Im a Ride Captain for the Patriot Guard Riders in Ky.

  • 22 - Gregory Newman

    May 26, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    We show up at all military funerals wether they are there or not. We only show up at the invite of the family.

  • 23 - Gregory Newman

    May 26, 2006 at 7:00 pm

    Were not counter protesters. Thank you.

  • 24 - Gregory Newman

    May 26, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    Valley Center


    The Patriot Guard at a funeral in Wichita late last year. Courtesy photo

    Patriot Guard protects families
    By Chris Strunk

    The Patriot Guard started small, but with a grand purpose. The group of motorcycle riders toting American flags simply wanted to honor war veterans killed in action.

    The group, from a Mulvane American Legion Post, couldn’t sit back and watch as a Topeka preacher and his family-based church protested during the funerals of these soldiers, holding signs that read “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Thank God for IEDs.”

    The riders figured if they could shield the family from that sight, they would honor the soldier as well as the family.

    The idea caught fire and spread across the country.

    “We knew there were thousands of Americans out there who would do the same thing if asked,” said Cregg Hansen, Patriot Guard co-captain. “… The Fred Phelps clan probably has brought more patriotism to the average person than they realize.”

    The Patriot Guard was formed last August after members of American Legion Post 136 in Mulvane heard of the Phelps protest at a soldier’s funeral in Newkirk, Okla.

    “We decided that if a soldier within 200 miles riding distance from the Wichita area was killed in action we would go to give our support to the family,” Hansen said.

    On Oct. 11, the group rode to Chelsea, Okla., to honor Sgt. John Doles. Phelps’ group of protesters was there.

    “When we arrived, there were 43 Legion riders from Kansas and about 50 additional riders from other groups, including the Legion Riders in Oklahoma, that met us in Chelsea,” Hansen said. “… We rode in with flags flying and basically positioned ourselves between the despicable sideshow and the family.”

    After the funeral and when members of the Westboro Baptist Church left, the Legion Riders were thanked by the family and community of Chelsea.

    “We knew then that this was the right thing to do,” Hansen said.

    Later that month, the group formally organized the Patriot Guard, choosing a new name because it included riders from other organizations. Since then, the guard has participated in 15 “missions.”

    The guard goes to funerals only when asked by the families of the soldiers. And it doesn’t matter whether Westboro Baptist protesters are there.

    “We are there to honor our fallen hero and support his or her family,” Hansen said.

    Hansen said he wasn’t surprised by the response the guard has received. It has since gone national, including riders from across the country.

    “Now that the (Westboro protesters) have drawn national attention, everyone realizes what idiots they are and why we will continue doing what we do, along with thousands of others,” Hansen said. “… There are many Vietnam-era vets who remember coming home to an ungrateful nation. That will never happen again.”

    The Patriot Guard will be honored during the June 3 Moonlight Madness event in Valley Center. Event organizers said whatever riders come to Moonlight Madness will be treated to a free meal. It’s a way, they said, to show the city’s appreciation for what the Patriot Guard is doing to honor veterans killed in action.

    Moonlight Madness also will feature a car show from 4 to 9 p.m. and a Lions Club food booth from 3 to 9 p.m. downtown.

  • 25 - SteveS

    May 26, 2006 at 8:12 pm

    Its not a Kentucky church. Its the Westboro Baptist Church and there in Oklahoma.

    It's in Topeka Kansas actually.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

blogcritics lists for Jul 10, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for June

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs